9 comments

• 

  jimgoldstein

  12 months ago

  Great write up Jonathan.
  Two points of clarification...
  1. I do see the core of responsibility falling on Flickr as they can regulate how their API works and more strictly regulate requirements of that API use around set image licensing. The API forbids access to private photos. I see no reason why it can't for All Rights Reserved. Granted that is extreme, but it proves my point they can do something.
  2. I would argue that Myxer was indeed "selling" Flickr photos. The photos were coming up as results in an e-commerce site. The value of those products were set at $0. They have a mechanism of selling/subscribing and opted to value that work at $0. There is nothing to say that values wouldn't change at a moments notice. On top of that their system to this date still distributes copyrighted material illegally. Case in point in the realm of photography with this photo of Michael Jordon http://www.myxer.com/wallpaper:490967/
  As I posed the question to a commenter of my blog post. What is worse someone selling your photo or giving it away for free? It is the same in my eyes as someone is assigning value to your work who does not have the right to do so and then distributing it.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan Bailey

  12 months ago

  Glad you liked the write up!
  
  On the first point. while that would be an option, it would also eliminate a lot of legitimate uses of Flickr content. I think the outright blocking of ARR images would be a bit much. A better solution would be to limit ARR images to thumbnail use only. Generally, the law allows for thumbnails to be displayed under fair use, this coming about since the Google Images ruling, so I think that would be a compromise that would allow some use fo ARR images in the API, but not infringe on copyrights.
  
  On the second, I don't disagree that Myxer did something it shouldn't, but saying that it is for sale is somewhat inaccurate. I personally would refer to it as a "commercial use" since the site admitted they were advertising supported. I have no doubt that there was a profit motive behind the use, with or without the shopping cart, but it still isn't actually for sale until money something else changes hands.
  
  Regarding the final question, I agree with you whole-heartedly. The law, however, does make a distinction so I do have to pay attention to such things.
  
  The law, sadly, does not always understand the spirit of the artist.
  reply
• 

  jslabovitz

  12 months ago

  Thank you for writing such a clear, well-thought-out response to this issue.
  
  As both a photographer and a developer who uses Flickr's API, I haven't made up my mind as to the best solution. But it was painful and frustrating to read so many comments (on other blogs noted) from folks who either misunderstood the issue or jumped to conclusions about Flickr's attitude.
  
  I do believe Flickr needs to make the licensing information clearer to users of the API. For example, the API call that finds the most recently updated photos for a user (ie, their photostream) has an optional parameter that enables the license type to be returned for each photo, along with the usual metadata.
  
  The fact that (1) this request for license info is optional, and (2) the license info is an obscure code that needs to be looked up with another (one-time) API call, makes it more likely that a developer will remain ignorant of a given photo's license. If Flickr always returned the license info, and it was in a clearer format, it might encourage those developers to think more carefully about the usage of any given photo fetched via the API.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan Bailey

  12 months ago

  Thank you for the great input on how to make the API clearer. As a non-developer, I was unaware of exactly how difficult it was to get the licensing information and you are definitely right about that, the fact that it requires two calls makes it that much easier to mess up. This is something Flickr should change just to avoid simple developer mistakes.
  
  Excellent point, thank you for sharing that!
  reply
• 

  Jim Goldstein

  12 months ago

  I second Jonathan's comment. Thanks for the insight on the technical side
  reply
• 

  jslabovitz

  12 months ago

  I've written up a (far!) longer response on the technical details of this issue. You can read it at my blog, at:
  
  How Flickr could make the world a better place for copyright
  
  An excerpt:
  
  

  
  Flickr has come under fire recently for not enforcing licensing terms on images accessed through their application programmer’s interface (API) and syndication feeds. Flickr could rectify this situation, and reduce the confusion and misinformed reaction, by making a few simple technical changes to its API, and minimally reaching out to its community of photographers, viewers, and developers.
  

  reply
• 

  Jonathan Bailey

  12 months ago

  Just got the trackbacks, looking at the post now, it is a great write up!
  reply
• 

  Alfie

  11 months ago

  You fellas should also check out Stashy.com..... so glad I left Flickr.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan Bailey

  11 months ago

  I took a look at the site. Stashy raises its own copyright issues by requiring that users copy images already on the Web rather than uploading their own. However, that was also a huge limitation that makes it rather pointless for me. Why use Stashy when I would already have the images up elsewhere on the Web?
  reply